Income Tax Officer, Mumbai Vs. Venkatesh Premises Cooperative Society Ltd.[ALL SC 2018 MARCH]

KEYWORDS:- Doctrine of mutuality- nonoccupancy charges-

c

DATE:- March 12, 2018

  • The doctrine of mutuality, based on common law principles, is premised on the theory that a person cannot make a profit from himself. An amount received from oneself, therefore, cannot be regarded as income and taxable. Section 2(24) of the Income Tax Act defines taxable income. The income of a cooperative society from business is taxable under Section 2(24)(vii) and will stand excluded from the principle of mutuality. The essence of the principle of mutuality lies in the commonality of the contributors and the participants who are also the beneficiaries. The contributors to the common fund must be entitled to participate in the surplus and the participators in the surplus are contributors to the common fund.
  • The law envisages a complete identity between the contributors and the participants in this sense. The principle postulates that what is returned is contributed by a member. Any surplus in the common fund shall therefore not constitute income but will only be an increase in the common fund meant to meet sudden eventualities. A common feature of mutual organizations in general can be stated to be that the participants usually do not have property rights to their share in the common fund, nor can they sell their share. Cessation from membership would result in the loss of right to participate without receiving a financial benefit from the cessation of the membership.

 

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai Vs. Venkatesh Premises Cooperative Society Ltd.

[Civil Appeal No.2706 of 2018 arising out of SLP (C) No(S). 30194/2010] WITH SEE BELOW

Judgment

NAVIN SINHA, J.

Delay condoned.

1. Leave granted in all the Special Leave Petitions.

2. A common question of law arises for consideration in this batch of appeals, whether certain receipts by cooperative societies, from its members i.e. nonoccupancy charges, transfer charges, common amenity fund charges and certain other charges, are exempt from income tax based on the doctrine of mutuality. The challenge is based on the premise that such receipts are in the nature of business income, generating profits and surplus, having an element of commerciality and therefore exigible to tax. The assessee in Civil Appeal No.1180 of 2015 assails the finding that such receipts, to the extent they were beyond the limits specified in the Government notification dated 09.08.2001 issued under Section 79A of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was exigible to tax falling beyond the mutuality doctrine.

3. The primary facts, for better appreciation shall be noticed from SLP (C) No.30194 of 2010. The assessing officer held that receipt of nonoccupancy charges by the society from its members, to the extent that it was beyond 10% of the service charges/maintenance charges permissible under the notification dated 09.08.2001, stands excluded from the principle of mutuality and was taxable. The order was upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the notification dated 09.08.2001 was applicable to cooperative housing societies only and did not apply to a premises society.

It further held that the transfer fee paid by the transferee member was exigible to tax as the transferee did not have the status of a member at the time of such payment and, therefore, the principles of mutuality did not apply. The High Court set aside the finding that payment by the transferee member was taxable while upholding taxability of the receipt beyond that specified in the government notification.

4. Shri K.R. Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue in all the appeals, submitted that the receipts were exigible to tax no sooner that mutuality came to an end and the receipts had an element of profit, also generating a surplus, rendering commerciality to the nature of the activity. The benefit of a common identity between the contributors and the participants could not alone be the final test. The Tribunal had correctly held that the transferee not being a member at the time of payment, the doctrine of mutuality had no application to such receipts. The principle of mutuality could not be invoked to prevent taxability of high value receipts by a society selling properties and then inducting such purchasers as members.

The validity of the notification dated 09.08.2001 having been upheld by the Bombay High Court in The New India Cooperative Housing Society vs. The State of Maharashtra, 6 2013 (2) MHLJ 666, any receipt by the society beyond that permissible in the law under the notification, was not only illegal, but also amounted to rendering of services for profit attracting an element of commerciality and thus was taxable. It stands to reason that if the society levied maintenance charge upon a resident member at the rate of Rs.1.35 per sq.ft./p.m. and charged the much higher rate of Rs.7/per sq.ft./p.m. as nonoccupancy charges from others, the society was acting commercially to earn profit. Reliance was placed on Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras vs. Kumbakonam Mutual Benefit Fund Ltd., AIR 1965 SC 96 = (1964) 8 SCR 204, Chelmsford Club vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2000) 3 SCC 214.

5. Sri Radhakrishnan, sought to invoke Article 43B of the Constitution of India mandating professional management of cooperative societies, to justify taxability of receipts beyond that permissible under the government notification. Reliance was further placed on Article 243ZI to submit that economic participation had to be restricted to members and had no 7 application to a transferee who was not a member, rendering receipt from them sans mutuality taxable.

6. The submission on behalf of the respondents shall be considered cumulatively for convenience except to the extent necessary. Relying on Mittal Court Premises Cooperative Society Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer, (2010) 320 ITR 414 (Bom), it was submitted that the notification dated 09.08.2001 was restricted in its application to housing cooperative societies only and had no application to a premises Society. Any receipt by the latter beyond the same was thus not exigible to tax on that ground.

7. The receipt by a housing cooperative society of an amount beyond that mentioned in the notification dated 09.08.2001, if it was contrary to the law, would be actionable at the instance of the person required to pay such charges as was the case in The New India Cooperative Housing Society (supra). Such receipts will not be exigible to tax so long as the doctrine of mutuality stood satisfied by commonality of identity between the contributors and the participants, and the contribution by the members was utilised for the common benefit of all the members.

8. The receipt of transfer fee before induction to membership under some of the byelaws shall not be liable to tax as the money was returned in the event that the person was not admitted to membership. The appropriation by the society took place only after admission to membership. Once a person was admitted to membership, the members forming a class, and the identity of the individual member being irrelevant, the principle of mutuality was automatically attracted. The receipt essentially was from a member and the fact that for convenience, part of it may have been paid by the transferee, was irrelevant as ultimately the amount was utilised for the mutual benefit of the members including the fresh inductee member.

9. Likewise, nonoccupancy charges were levied for the purpose of general maintenance of the premises of the Society and provision of other facilities and general amenities to the members. The fact that such members who were not in self occupation may have had to pay at a higher rate was irrelevant so long as the receipts were utilised for the benefit of the members as a class. It is not the case of the Revenue that such receipts had been utilised for any purpose other than the common benefit of the members. Even if any amount was left over as surplus at the end of the financial year after meeting maintenance and other common charges, that would constitute surplus fund of the society to be used for the common benefit of members and to meet heavy repairs and other contingencies and will not partake the character of profit or commerciality so as to be exigible to tax.

10. Relying on Commissioner of Income Tax  vs. Jai Hind Cooperative House Construction Society, (2012) 349 ITR 541 (Bom), it was contended that premium receipts by a housing society for allowing a member to construct using extra FSI was also not taxable on principles of mutuality as the receipts were utilised by the society for maintenance and 10 infrastructure including to defray the extra burden on account of the additional FSI constructed.

11. Fresh construction by a society itself, utilising extra FSI available, with grant of occupancy rights only to a member who may have had to pay more as membership fees than an existing member, will likewise not detract from the principle of mutuality as the contribution was ultimately to be used for the maintenance, repairs and facilities to members in the society including the additional construction. There could be no bifurcation between the receipts and costs to deny exemption to the extent paid by the new members to qualify the same as nonmutual. Crucially, the admission to membership preceded the payment and allotment of premises was done by draw of lottery.

12. It was next submitted that every receipt could not ipso facto be classified as income, relying on Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. D.P. Sandhu Bros. Chembur (P) Ltd., (2005) 273 ITR 1 (SC). Referring to CIT vs. Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd., AIR 1954 SC 85, it was submitted that so long as the three tests to determine mutuality and commonality of interests were met, there could not be exigiblity to tax under the general understanding of the doctrine of mutuality that a person could not make a profit from himself. Reliance was also placed on Commissioner of Income Tax, Bihar vs. M/s. Bankipur Club Ltd., (1997) 226 ITR 97 (SC ) = (1997) 5 SCC 394 and Bangalore Club vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and Another, (2013) 350 ITR 509 (SC)= (2013) 5 SCC 509.

13. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties.

14. The doctrine of mutuality, based on common law principles, is premised on the theory that a person cannot make a profit from himself. An amount received from oneself, therefore, cannot be regarded as income and taxable. Section 2(24) of the Income Tax Act defines taxable income. The income of a cooperative society from business is taxable under Section 2(24)(vii) and will stand excluded from the principle of mutuality. The essence of the principle of mutuality lies in the commonality of the contributors and the participants who are also the beneficiaries. The contributors to the common fund must be entitled to participate in the surplus and the participators in the surplus are contributors to the common fund.

The law envisages a complete identity between the contributors and the participants in this sense. The principle postulates that what is returned is contributed by a member. Any surplus in the common fund shall therefore not constitute income but will only be an increase in the common fund meant to meet sudden eventualities. A common feature of mutual organizations in general can be stated to be that the participants usually do not have property rights to their share in the common fund, nor can they sell their share. Cessation from membership would result in the loss of right to participate without receiving a financial benefit from the cessation of the membership.

15. The doctrine of mutuality based on common law is predicated on the principles enunciated in Styles vs. New York Life Insurance Company, (1889) 2 T.C. 460, by Lord Watson in the House of Lords in the following words: “When a number of individuals agree to contribute funds for a common purpose, such as the payment of annuities or of capital sums, to some or all of them, on the occurrence of events certain or uncertain, and stipulate that their contributions, so far as not required for that purpose, shall be repaid to them, I cannot conceive why they should b regarded as traders, or why contributions returned to them should be regarded as profits.”

16. In Bankipur Club Ltd. (supra), considering the surplus of receipts over expenditure generated from the facilities extended by a club to its members and its exemption from tax on principles of mutuality, it was observed :”

20……..In all these cases, the appellate tribunal as also the High Court have found that the amounts received by the clubs were for supply of drinks, refreshments or other goods as also the letting out of building for rent or the amounts received by way of admission fees, periodical subscription etc. from the members of the clubs were only for/towards charges for the privileges, conveniences and amenities provided to the members, which they were entitled to as per the rules and regulations of the respective clubs. It has also been found that different clubs realised various sums on the above counts only to afford to their members the usual privileges, advantages, conveniences and accommodation. In other words, the services offered on the above counts were not done with any profit motive and were not tainted with commerciality. The facilities were offered only as a matter of convenience for the use of the members (and their friends, if any, availing of the facilities occasionally).

21. In the light of the above findings, it necessarily follows that the receipts for the various facilities extended by the clubs to their members, as stated hereinabove as part of the usual privileges, advantages and conveniences, attached to the membership of the club, cannot be said to be “a trading activity”. The surplus – excess of receipts over the expenditure as a result of mutual arrangement, cannot be said to be “income” for the purpose of the Act.”

17. In Bangalore Club (supra), after referring to Styles, the doctrine of mutuality was explained further as follows :”

8………..The principle relates to the notion that a person cannot make a profit from himself. An amount received from oneself is not regarded as income and is therefore not subject to tax; only the income which comes within the definition of Section 2(24) of the Act is subject to tax [income from business involving the doctrine of mutuality is denied exemption only in special cases covered under clause (vii) of Section 2(24) of the Act].

The concept of mutuality has been extended to defined groups of people who contribute to a common fund, controlled by the group, for a common benefit. Any amount surplus to that needed to pursue the common purpose is said to be simply an increase of the common fund and as such neither considered income nor taxable…….. A common feature of mutual organisations in general and of licensed clubs in particular, is that participants usually do not have property rights to their share in the common fund, nor can they sell their share. And when they cease to be members, they lose their right to participate without receiving a financial benefit from the surrender of their membership……”

18. In The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Common Effluent Treatment Plant, (Thane Belapur) Association, (2010) 328 ITR 362 (Bom), the assessee, an incorporated association under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956 comprising of industries operating in the ThaneBelapur region, was set up with a view to provide a centralised treatment facility for industrial effluents in view of the inability of each industrial unit to set up a separate effluent treatment facility. Chandrachud, J. (as he then was), speaking for the Division Bench, applying the principles of mutuality to the surplus so generated not being exigible to tax, held :”

10. ….The income of the assessee is contributed by its members. The assessee has been formed specifically with the object of providing a common effluent facility to its members. The income is not generated out of dealings with any third party. The entire contribution originates in its members and is expended only in furtherance of the object of the Association for the benefit of the members. On these facts, both the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal were justified in coming to the conclusion that the surplus so generated falls within the purview of the doctrine of mutuality and was not exigible to tax….”

19. The proceedings in the present appeals relate to different assessment years based on information gathered by the Assessing Officer pursuant to notice under Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act. Transfer charges are payable by the outgoing member. If for convenience, part of it is paid by the transferee, it would not partake the nature of profit or commerciality as the amount is appropriated only after the transferee is inducted as a member. In the event of nonadmission, the amount is returned. The moment the transferee is inducted as a member the principles of mutuality apply.

Likewise, nonoccupancy charges are levied by the society and is payable by a member who does not himself occupy the premises but lets it out to a third person. The charges are again utilised only for the common benefit of facilities and amenities to the members. Contribution to the common amenity fund taken from a member disposing property is similarly utilised for meeting sudden and regular heavy repairs to ensure continuous and proper hazard free maintenance of the properties of the society which ultimately enures to the enjoyment, benefit and safety of the members. These charges are levied on the basis of resolutions passed by the society and in consonance with its byelaws. The receipts in the present cases have indisputably been used for mutual benefit towards maintenance of the premises, repairs, infrastructure and provision of common amenities.

20. Any difference in the contributions payable by old members and fresh inductees cannot fall foul of the law as sufficient classification exists. Membership forming a class, the identity of the individual member not being relevant, induction into membership automatically attracts the doctrine of mutuality. If a Society has surplus FSI available, it is entitled to utilise the same by making fresh construction in accordance with law.

Naturally such additional construction would entail extra charges towards maintenance, infrastructure, common facilities and amenities. If the society first inducts new members who are required to contribute to the common fund for availing common facilities, and then grants only occupancy rights to them by draw of lots, the ownership remaining with the society, the receipts cannot be bifurcated into two segments of receipt and costs, so as to hold the former to be outside the purview of mutuality classifying it as income of the society with commerciality.

21. Section 79A of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act reads as follows:

“79A. Government’s power to give directions in the public interest, etc.

(1) If the State Government, on receipt of a report from the Registrar or otherwise, is satisfied that in the public interest or for the purposes 19 of securing proper implementation of cooperative production and other development programmes approved or undertaken by Government, or to secure the proper management of the business of the Society generally, or for preventing the affairs of the Society being conducted in a manner detrimental to the interests of the members or of the depositors or the creditors thereof, it is necessary to issue directions to any class of societies generally or to any Society or societies in particular, the State Government may issue directions to them from time to time, and all societies or the societies concerned, as the case may be, shall be bound to comply with such directions.

(2) The State Government may modify or cancel any directions issued under subsection (1), and in modifying or cancelling such directions may impose such conditions as it may deem fit.

(3) Where the Registrar is satisfied that any person was responsible for complying with any directions or modified directions issued to a Society under subsections (1) and (2) and he has failed without any good reason or justification, to comply with the directions, the Registrar may by order

(a) if the person is a member of the committee of the Society, remove the member from the Committee and appoint any other person as member of the committee for the remainder of the term of his office and declare him to be disqualified to be such member for a period of six years from the date of the order:

(b) if the person is an employee of the Society, direct the committee to remove such person from employment of the Society forthwith, and if any member or members of the committee, without 20 any good reason or justification, fail to comply with this order, remove the members, appoint other persons as members and declare them disqualified as provided in clause (a) above: Provided that, before making any order under this subsection, the Registrar shall give a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the person or persons concerned and consult the federal Society is affiliated. Any order made by the Registrar under this section shall be final.”

22. In The New India Cooperative Housing Society (supra), the challenge by the aggrieved was to the transfer fee levied by the society in excess of that specified in the notification, which is a completely different cause of action having no relevance to the present controversy. It is not the case of the Revenue that such receipts have not been utilised for the common benefit of those who have contributed to the funds.

23. The notification dated 09.08.2001 in the relevant extract reads as follows:

ORDER

In the exercise of the powers conferred upon the State Government under Section 79A of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 following orders are hereby issued in the larger interests of the people in the State.

1) Xxxxxx

2) The rate of premium to be charged for the transfer Flat/Premises as well as the rights and share in the share capital/property of the Cooperative Housing Society by a member in favour of another, should be determined at the General Meeting of the Society.

24. We do not find any reason to take a view different from that taken by the High Court, that the notification dated 09.08.2001 is applicable only to cooperative housing societies and has no application to a premises society which consists of nonresidential premises.

25. Kumbakonam (supra), is distinguishable on its own facts. The doctrine of mutuality was held to be inapplicable because the members who had not contributed to surplus as customers were nevertheless entitled to participate and receive part of the surplus. In Chelmsford Club (supra), it was held that there was no profit motive or sharing of profits as such amongst the members. The surplus, if any, from the business was not shared by the members but was used for providing better facilities to the members. There was a clear identity between the contributors and the participators to the fund and the recipients thereof.

26. In the result, all appeals preferred by the Revenue are dismissed. Civil Appeal No.1180 of 2015 preferred by the assessee society is allowed.

J. (Rohinton Fali Nariman)

J. (Navin Sinha)

New Delhi,

March 12, 2018

______________________________________

[Civil Appeal No. 3827 of 2012]

Civil Appeal No. 3271 of 2012]

[Civil Appeal No.3272 of 2012]

Civil Appeal No.1180 of 2015]

[Civil Appeal No.2997 of 2017]

Civil Appeal No.8741 of 2017]

[Civil Appeal No(S).2708 of 2018 arising out of SLP (C) No. 32061/2010]

[Civil Appeal No(S).2707 of 2018 arising out of SLP (C) No. 30195/2010]

[Civil Appeal No(S).2713 of 2018 arising out of SLP (C) No. 32914/2010]

[Civil Appeal No(S).2710 of 2018 arising out of SLP (C) No. 32913/2010]

[Civil Appeal No(S).2709 of 2018 arising out of SLP (C) No. 32063/2010]

[Civil Appeal No(S).2711 of 2018 arising out of SLP (C) No. 32065/2010]

[Civil Appeal No(S).2712 of 2018 arising out of SLP (C) No. 34087/2010]

[Civil Appeal No(S).2716 of 2018 arising out of SLP (C) No. 35120/2010]

[Civil Appeal No(S).2714 of 2018 arising out of SLP (C) No. 32918/2010]

[Civil Appeal No(S).2715 of 2018 arising out of SLP (C) No. 34061/2010]

[Civil Appeal No(S).2717 of 2018 arising out of SLP (C) No. 128/2011]

[Civil Appeal No(S).2728 of 2018 arising out of SLP (C) No. 16967/2011]

[Civil Appeal No(S).2718 of 2018 arising out of SLP (C) No. 133/2011]

[Civil Appeal No(S).2720 of 2018 arising out of SLP (C) No. 367/2011]

[Civil Appeal No(S).2721 of 2018 arising out of SLP (C) No. 370/2011]

[Civil Appeal No(S).2719 of 2018 arising out of SLP (C) No. 378/2011]

[Civil Appeal No(S).2722 of 2018 arising out of SLP (C) No. 2623/2011]

[Civil Appeal No(S).2724 of 2018 arising out of SLP (C) No. 2745/2011]

[Civil Appeal No(S).2726 of 2018 arising out of SLP (C) No. 4096/2011]

[Civil Appeal No(S).2723 of 2018 arising out of SLP (C) No. 2744/2011]

[Civil Appeal No(S).2725 of 2018 arising out of SLP (C) No. 3283/2011]

[Civil Appeal No(S).2727 of 2018 arising out of SLP (C) No. 5382/2011]

[Civil Appeal No(S).2729 of 2018 arising out of SLP (C) No. 17102/2011]

[Civil Appeal No(S).2730 of 2018 arising out of SLP (C) No. 17667/2011]

[Civil Appeal No(S).2731 of 2018 arising out of SLP (C) No. 19992/2012]

[Civil Appeal No(S).2732 of 2018 arising out of SLP (C) No. 19993/2012]

[Civil Appeal No(S).2733 of 2018 arising out of SLP (C) No. 17428/2015]

[Civil Appeal No(S).2734 of 2018 arising out of SLP (C) No. 29755/2013]

[Civil Appeal No(S).2735 of 2018 arising out of SLP (C) No. 17430/2015]

[Civil Appeal No(S).2736 of 2018 arising out of SLP (C) No. 17431/2015]

[Civil Appeal No(S).2740 of 2018 arising out of SLP (C) No. 37702/2016]

[Civil Appeal No(S).2739 of 2018 arising out of SLP (C) No. 36157/2016]

[Civil Appeal No(S).2737 of 2018 arising out of SLP (C) No. 34865/2016]

[Civil Appeal No(S).2738 of 2018 arising out of SLP (C) No. 34866/2016]

[Civil Appeal No(S).2741 of 2018 arising out of SLP (C) No. 4122/2017]

[Civil Appeal No(S).2742 of 2018 arising out of SLP (C) No. 4126/2017]

[Civil Appeal No(S).2743 of 2018 arising out of SLP (C) No. 12234/2017]

[Civil Appeal No(S).27662767 of 2018 arising out of SLP (C) Nos.65826583/ 2018 @ Diary No(S). 14603/2017]

[Civil Appeal No(S).2747 of 2018 arising out of SLP (C) No. 19340/2017]

[Civil Appeal No(S).2744 of 2018 arising out of SLP (C) No. 18935/2017]

[Civil Appeal No(S).27682769 of 2018 arising out of SLP (C) Nos.65856586 @ Diary No(S). 14672/2017]

[Civil Appeal No(S).27712772 of 2018 arising out of SLP (C) Nos.65876588/ 2018 @ Diary No(S). 14675/2017]

[Civil Appeal No(S).2770 of 2018 arising out of SLP (C) No.6589/2018 @ Diary No(S). 14674/2017]

[Civil Appeal No(S) . 2746 of 2018 arising out of SLP (C) No. 18944/2017]

[Civil Appeal No(S) . 2745 of 2018 arising out of SLP (C) No. 18943/2017]

[Civil Appeal No(S) . 2765 of 2018 arising out of SLP (C) No.6550/2018 @ Diary No(S). 18867/2017]

Union of India and Others Vs. Chaman Rana[ ALL SC 2018 MARCH]

KEYWORDS:- retrospective promotion-

c

DATE:-March 12, 2018.

  • Belated retrospective promotion denied

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Union of India and Others Vs. Chaman Rana

[Civil Appeal No(S). 2764 of 2018 arising out of SLP (C) No.1123 of 2018]

Union of India and Others Vs. Gulshan Kumar Sharma

[Civil Appeal No(S).2763 of 2018 arising out of SLP (C) No.1118 of 2018]

NAVIN SINHA, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These two appeals arise from a common order dated 05.05.2017, directing retrospective consideration for promotion of the respondents to the post of second-in-command and Commandant respectively, in the Border Security Force (BSF), from the date that their juniors had been promoted, along with all consequential benefits.

3. The respondents in the two writ petitions were superseded in the years 1996 and 2000, respectively. Both of them were subsequently promoted on 28.11.1997 and 16.06.2003 as second-in-command and Commandant respectively. Subsequently, both of them submitted several representations for promotion from the date of supersession. Orders rejecting the representations, along with reasons, were duly communicated to them more than once. After the pronouncement in Sukhdev Singh vs. Union of India & ors., (2013) 9 SCC 566 affirming Dev Dutt vs. Union of India & ors., (2008) 8 SCC 725, separate writ petitions were filed by them on 25.09.2016. The common plea taken was that the entry ‘good’ in their annual confidential reports (ACRs) for the relevant years was an adverse remark in view of the benchmark of ‘very good’. Since the adverse entry had not been communicated to them, it could not be taken into consideration, requiring reconsideration for promotion from the date of supersession.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the claims of the respondents were highly belated and stale. The writ petitions ought to have been dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. Specific objection had been taken in the counter affidavit, including the cascading effect that it would have had upon those promoted earlier to the respondents, and which would lead to administrative chaos. Mere filing of representations or a subsequent judgement, could not be sufficient justification to entertain such belated claims, dehors the facts of a case. The High Court ought not to have given directions to consider their candidature with retrospective effect.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that enunciation of law by this Court will always have to be given retrospective effect, unless it is made prospective specifically. The grading ‘good’ in the facts of the case was adverse as the benchmark for promotion was ‘very good’. In view of the law laid down in Dev Dutt (supra) as affirmed in Sukhdev Singh (supra), it was mandatory for the appellants to have communicated such adverse remarks to the respondents. In absence of such communication, these remarks could not have been considered to deny promotions. The respondents were genuinely and bonafide pursuing their grievances before the authorities themselves, hoping that they would see reason, and only when they realised that relief would not be forthcoming otherwise, they approached the High Court ultimately.

6. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties. The only question for consideration is the applicability of the law as declared in Dev Dutt (supra) and affirmed in Sukhdev Singh (supra) to the respondents in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

7. The benchmark for promotion to the posts in question under the BSF (Seniority, Promotion and Superannuation of Officers) Rules of 1978, as prescribed in paramilitary Promotion DO letter dated 25.11.1988 was modified on 08.05.1990 from ‘Good’ to ‘Very Good’. The respondent Chaman Rana, a Deputy Commandant was considered for promotion to the rank of second-in-command at the departmental promotion committee (DPC) meeting held on 13.09.1996 but could not make the grade in view of the criteria prescribed in DO letter dated 08.05.1990. The respondent represented on 20.02.1997 against his supersession. An order of rejection with reasons was communicated to him on 25.03.1997. The cause of action had, therefore, accrued to seek relief before a court of law. Nonetheless, a repeat representation was made on 31.07.1997, and a reasoned rejection was again communicated on 07.05.1998. In the meantime, the respondent was empanelled to be considered for promotion to the rank of second-in-command by the DPC held in the year 1997, and he was promoted as such on 28.11.1997. A cause of action again accrued to the respondent for approaching the Court for relief but he again represented on 30.06.1998, followed by further representations on 14.09.1998, 22.08.2000, 22.08.2006. A fresh reasoned order of rejection was again communicated on 16.05.2007. Repeat representations followed on 28.08.2012, 07.11.2015 and 20.11.2015 after which the writ petition came to be instituted.

8. Likewise, the respondent Gulshan Kumar Sharma was considered for promotion as Commandant in the years 20002001 and 20012002 by the DPC but was superseded as he failed to secure the benchmark. He represented on 25.10.2001 and was informed on 09.01.2002 that he had failed to secure the benchmark. The cause of action to approach the Court for grant of relief had accrued to the respondent but he again represented on 18.03.2002.

An order of rejection along with reasons was again communicated to him on 01.09.2004. After he was promoted as Commandant on 16.06.2003, instead of approaching the Court, he again represented on 04.05.2005, followed by another representation on 08.01.2007. A reasoned order of rejection was again communicated to him on 17.04.2008. This was followed by further representation on 11.08.2009 which was again rejected on 02.09.2009 allegedly communicated on 01.01.2016. A further representation dated 03.08.2015 was also rejected on 27.11.2015. The writ petition then came to be instituted.

9. Manifestly, the cause of action first arose to the respondents on the date of initial supersession and again on the date when rejection of their representation was communicated to them, or within reasonable time thereafter. Even if the plea based on Dev Dutt (supra) be considered, the cause of action based thereon accrued on 12.05.2008. There has to be a difference between a cause of action and what is perceived as materials in support of the cause of action. In service matters, especially with regard to promotion, there is always an urgency.

The aggrieved must approach the Court at the earliest opportunity, or within a reasonable time thereafter as third party rights accrue in the meantime to those who are subsequently promoted. Such persons continue to work on the promotional post, ensconced in their belief of the protection available to them in service with regard to seniority. Any belated interference with the same is bound to have adverse effect on those already promoted affecting their morale in service also. Additionally, any directions at a belated stage to consider others for promotion with retrospective effect, after considerable time is bound to have serious administrative implications apart from the financial burden on the government that would follow by such orders of promotion.

10. As far back as in P.S. Sadasivaswamy vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, (1975) 1 SCC 152, considering a claim for promotion belated by 14 years, this Court had observed that a period of six months or at the utmost a year would be reasonable time to approach a court against denial of promotion and that it would be a sound and wise exercise of discretion not to entertain such claims by persons who tried to unsettle the settled matters, which only clog the work of the court impeding it in considering genuine grievances within time in the following words :”

2….. A person aggrieved by an order of promoting a junior over his head should approach the Court at least within six months or at the most a year of such promotion. It is not that there is any period of limitation for the Courts to exercise their powers under Article 226 nor is it that there can never be a case where the Courts cannot interfere in a matter after the passage of a certain length of time. But it would be a sound and wise exercise of discretion for the Courts to refuse to exercise their extraordinary powers under Article 226 in the case of persons who do not approach it expeditiously for relief and who stand by and allow things to happen and then approach the Court to put forward stale claims and try to unsettle settled matters.

The petitioner’s petition should, therefore, have been dismissed in limine. Entertaining such petitions is a waste of time of the Court. It clogs the work of the Court and impedes the work of the Court in considering legitimate grievances as also its normal work. We consider that the High Court was right in dismissing the appellant’s petition as well as the appeal.”

11. Mere repeated filing of representations could not be sufficient explanation for delay in approaching the Court for grant of relief, was considered in Gandhinagar Motor Transport Society vs. State of Bombay, A.I.R. 1954 Bombay 202, by Chief Justice Chagla, observing as follows :

“(2)…… Now, we have had occasion to point out that the only delay which this Court will excuse in presenting a petition is the delay which is caused by the petitioner pursuing a legal remedy which is given to him. In this particular case the petitioner did not pursue a legal remedy. The remedy he pursued was extralegal or extrajudicial. Once the final decision of government is given, a representation is merely an appeal for mercy or indulgence, but it is not pursuing a remedy which the law gave to the petitioner…”

12. The appellant, in its counter affidavit before the High Court, had specifically taken the objection that the claim was highly belated, and that any direction for a retrospective consideration would have a destabilising effect in unsettling the settled position which would lead to complete chaos apart from other administrative consequences. The High Court failed to consider the objection. In Union of India vs. M.K. Sarkar, (2010) 2 SCC 59, this Court observed as follows:”

16. A court or tribunal, before directing ‘consideration’ of a claim or representation should examine whether the claim or representation is with reference to a ‘live’ issue or whether it is with reference to a ‘dead’ or ‘stale’ issue. If it is with reference to a ‘dead’ or ‘stale’ issue or dispute, the court/tribunal should put an end to the matter and should not direct consideration or reconsideration….”

13. In Dev Dutt (supra), the DPC was held on 16.12.1994. The appellant therein, aggrieved by his supersession moved the High Court with utmost expedition leading to the pronouncement by the Single Judge on 21.08.2001 and by the Division Bench on 26.11.2001. The appeal was instituted before this Court in the year 2002. If that were not sufficient to distinguish the case of the respondents, reference may also be made to the observations in paragraph 36 as follows:

“36. In the present case, we are developing the principles of natural justice by holding that fairness and transparency in public administration requires that all entries (whether poor, fair, average, good or very good) in the annual confidential report of a public servant, whether in civil, judicial, police or any other State service (except the military), must be communicated to him within a reasonable period so that he can make a representation for its upgradation.”

14. The High Court erred in placing absolute reliance on Dev Dutt (supra) and Sukhdev (supra) without noticing the fact situation of the respondents. In Union of India and another vs. Major Bahadur Singh, (2006) (1) SCC 368, it was observed:”

9. The courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. Observations of the courts are neither to be read as Euclid’s theorems nor as provisions of the statute and that too taken out of their context. These observations must be read in the context in which they appear to have been stated. Judgments of the courts are not to be construed as statutes. To interpret words, phrases and provisions of a statute, it may become necessary for judges to embark into lengthy discussions but the discussion is meant to explain and not to define. Judges interpret statutes, they do not interpret judgments….”

15. A subsequent pronouncement by this Court could not enthuse a fresh lease of life, or furnish a fresh cause of action to what was otherwise clearly a dead and stale claim. In State of Uttaranchal vs. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari, (2013) 12 SCC 179, it was observed that :”

29…. Not for nothing, has it been said that everything may stop but not the time, for we are all slaves of time. There may not be any provision providing for limitation but a grievance relating to promotion cannot be given a new lease of life at any point of time.”

16. The observations with regard to the modus operandi of the representation syndrome to revive what are clearly dead and stale claims as discussed in C. Jacob vs. Director of Geology and Mining, (2008) 10 SCC 115, and the caution to be exercised by the Court are also considered apposite in the facts of the present case.

17. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, any direction to consider retrospective promotion of the respondents at such a belated passage of time of over 17 to 20 years, would virtually bring a tsunami in the service resulting in administrative chaos quite apart from the financial implications for the government. The order of the High Court is therefore held to be unsustainable and is set aside.

18. Both the appeals are allowed for the aforesaid reasons.

J. (Arun Mishra)

J. (Navin Sinha)

New Delhi,

March 12, 2018.

Indian Legislations [Central] 1850 to 1950

Enactment Date Act Number Short Title View
27-Aug-1838 19 The Coasting vessels Act, 1838 View…
12-Mar-1850 12 The Public Accountants Defaults Act, 1850 View…
4-Apr-1850 18 The Judicial Officers Protection Act, 1850 View…
4-Jun-1851 08 The India Tolls Act, 1851 View…
27-Mar-1855 12 The Legal Representatives Suits Act, 1855 View…
27-Mar-1855 13 The Fetal Accidents Act, 1855 View…
19-Sep-1855 28 The Usury Laws Repeal Act, 1855 View…
11-Apr-1856 09 The Indian Bills of Landing Act 1856 View…
13-Feb-1857 05 The Oriental Gas Company Act, 1857 View…
21-May-1860 21 The Societies Registration Act, 1860 View…
6-Oct-1860 45 The India Penal Code, 1860 View…
6-Oct-1860 45 The Indian Penal Code, 1860 View…
22-Mar-1861 05 The Police Act, 1861 View…
7-Jul-1861 16 The Stage-Carriages Act, 1861 View…
10-Mar-1863 20 The Religious endowments act, 1863 View…
24-Mar-1863 23 The Indian Tolls Act, 1864 View…
14-Jan-1865 03 The Carriers Act, 1865 View…
25-Jan-1867 03 The Public Gambling Act, 1867 View…
1-Mar-1867 11 The Oriental Gas Company Act, 1867 View…
22-Mar-1867 25 The Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 View…
26-Jan-1869 04 The Indian Divorce Act, 1869 View…
19-Mar-1869 14 The Bombay Civil Courts Act, 1869 View…
11-Mar-1870 07 The Court-Fees Act, 1870 View…
13-Jan-1871 01 The Cattle-Trespass Act, 1871 View…
18-Aug-1871 23 The Pensions Act, 1871 View…
15-Mar-1872 01 The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 View…
15-Mar-1872 01 The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 View…
25-Apr-1872 09 The Indian Contract Act, 1872 View…
25-Apr-1872 09 The Indian Contract Act, 1872 View…
18-Jul-1872 15 The Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872 View…
18-Jul-1872 15 The Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872 View…
21-Jan-1873 03 The Madras Civil Courts Act, 1873 View…
28-Jan-1873 05 The Government Savings Banks Act, 1873 View…
11-Feb-1873 08 The Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873 View…
24-Feb-1874 03 The Married Women’s Property Act, 1874 View…
2-Mar-1875 09 The Majority Act, 1875 View…
14-Sep-1876 15 The Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act, 1875 View…
13-Feb-1878 06 The Indian Treasure-trove Act, 1878 View…
9-Nov-1878 17 The Northern Indian Ferries Act, 1878 View…
29-Oct-1879 18 The Legal Practitioners Act, 1879 View…
9-Jul-1880 12 The Kazis Act, 1880 View…
9-Oct-1880 01 The Religious Societies Act, 1880 View…
25-Feb-1881 11 The Municipal Taxation Act, 1881 View…
9-Dec-1881 26 The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 View…
9-Dec-1881 26 The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 View…
13-Jan-1882 02 The Indian Trust Act, 1882 View…
17-Feb-1882 04 The Transfer of Property Act, 1882 View…
17-Feb-1882 05 The Indian Easements Act, 1882 View…
17-Feb-1882 07 The Powers-of Attorney Act, 1882 View…
17-Mar-1882 15 The Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 View…
12-Oct-1883 19 The Land Improvement Loans Act, 1883 View…
12-Oct-1883 20 The Punjab District Boards Act, 1883 View…
26-Feb-1884 04 The Explosives Act, 1884 View…
22-Jul-1885 13 The Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 View…
16-Oct-1885 18 The Land Acquisition (Mines) Act, 1885 View…
8-Mar-1886 06 The Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act, 1886 View…
12-Mar-1886 11 The Indian Tramways Act, 1886 View…
11-Feb-1887 07 The Suits Valuation Act, 1887 View…
24-Feb-1887 09 The Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 View…
11-Mar-1887 12 The Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 View…
10-Jul-1887 19 The Joint-stock Companies Act, 1857 View…
2-Mar-1888 04 The Indian Reserve Forces Act, 1888 View…
14-Feb-1890 01 The Revenue Recovery Act, 1890 View…
17-Mar-1890 06 The Charitable Endowments Act, 1890 View…
21-Mar-1890 08 The Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 View…
6-Mar-1891 08 The Easements (Extending Act 5 of 1882), 1891 View…
21-Mar-1891 15 The Murshidabad Act, 1891 View…
14-May-1891 16 The Colonial Courts of Admiralty (India) Act, 1891 View…
1-Oct-1891 18 The Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891 View…
12-Aug-1892 07 The Madras City Civil Court Act, 1892 View…
25-Oct-1892 10 The Government Managemnet of Private Estates Act, 1892 View…
22-Mar-1894 09 The Prisons Act, 1894 View…
4-Feb-1897 03 The Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 View…
11-Mar-1897 10 The General Clauses Act, 1897 View…
22-Mar-1898 06 The Indian Post Office Act, 1898 View…
12-Aug-1898 09 The Live-stock Importation Act, 1898 View…
27-Jan-1899 02 The Indian Stamp Act, 1899 View…
27-Jan-1899 02 The Indian Stamp Act, 1899 View…
3-Feb-1899 04 The Government Buildings Act, 1899 View…
20-Mar-1899 13 The Glanders and Farcy Act, 1899 View…
2-Feb-1900 03 The Prisoners Act, 1900 View…
22-Feb-1901 02 The Indian Tolls (Army and Air Force) Act, 1901 View…
20-Mar-1903 07 The Works of Defence Act, 1903 View…
20-Mar-1903 10 The Victoria Memorial Act, 1903 View…
18-Mar-1904 07 The Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904 View…
22-Mar-1905 04 The Indian Railway Board Act, 1905 View…
21-Mar-1908 05 The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 View…
21-Mar-1908 05 The Code of Civil Procedure Act, 1908 View…
8-Jun-1908 06 The Explosive Substances Act, 1908 View…
11-Dec-1908 14 The Indian Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908 View…
18-Dec-1908 16 The Registration Act, 1908 View…
18-Dec-1908 15 The Indian Ports Act, 1908 View…
18-Dec-1908 16 The Registration Act, 1908 View…
12-Mar-1909 03 The Presidency-towns Insolvency Act, 1909 View…
22-Oct-1909 07 The Anand Marriage Act, 1909 View…
25-Feb-1910 05 The Dourine Act, 1910 View…
18-Mar-1910 10 The Indian Museum Act, 1910 View…
1-Mar-1912 02 The Co-operative Societies Act, 1912 View…
27-Feb-1913 02 The Official Trusteers Act, 1913 View…
7-Mar-1913 05 The White Phosphorus Matches Prohibition Act, 1913 View…
3-Feb-1914 02 The Destructive Insects and Pests Act, 1914 View…
8-Sep-1915 10 The Sir Jamsetjee Jejeebhoy Baronetcy Act, 1915 View…
1-Oct-1915 16 The Banaras Hindu University Act, 1915 View…
28-Sep-1916 15 The Hindu Disposition of Property Act, 1916 View…
7-Feb-1917 01 The Inland Vessels Act, 1917 View…
28-Feb-1917 05 The Destruction of Records Act, 1917 View…
19-Sep-1917 18 The Post Office Cash Certificates Act, 1917 View…
22-Mar-1918 10 The Usurious Loans Act, 1918 View…
3-Sep-1919 12 The Poisons Act, 1919 View…
17-Sep-1919 15 The Calcutta High Court (Jurisdictional Limits) Act, 1919 View…
25-Feb-1920 05 The Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 View…
11-Mar-1920 10 The Indian Securities Act, 1920 View…
20-Mar-1920 14 The Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 1920 View…
20-Mar-1920 15 The Indian Red Cross Society Act, 1920 View…
9-Sep-1920 33 The Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 View…
9-Sep-1920 34 The Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 View…
14-Sep-1920 40 The Aligarh Muslim University Act, 1920 View…
5-Oct-1921 18 The Maintenance Orders Enforcement Act, 1921 View…
15-Mar-1922 08 The Delhi University Act, 1922 View…
23-Feb-1923 05 The Indian Boilers Act, 1923 View…
5-Mar-1923 06 The Cantonments (House Accommodation) Act, 1923 View…
5-Mar-1923 07 The Indian Naval Armament Act, 1923 View…
5-Mar-1923 08 The Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 View…
2-Apr-1923 19 The Official Secrets Act, 1923 View…
5-Aug-1923 42 The Mussalman Wakf Act, 1923 View…
26-Feb-1925 04 The Indian Soldiers (Litigation) Act, 1925 View…
27-Aug-1925 19 The Provident Funds Act, 1925 View…
21-Sep-1925 26 The Indian Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1925 View…
30-Sep-1925 39 The Indian Succession Act, 1925 View…
25-Mar-1926 16 The Trade Unions Act, 1926 View…
9-Sep-1926 38 The Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 View…
21-Sep-1927 16 The Indian Forest Act, 1927 View…
21-Sep-1927 17 The Light House Act, 1927 View…
15-Mar-1930 03 The Sale of Goods Act, 1930 View…
25-Jul-1930 30 The Hindu Gains of Learning Act, 1930 View…
28-Sep-1931 16 The Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1931 View…
8-Apr-1932 09 The Indian Partnership Act, 1932 View…
19-Dec-1932 23 The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1932 View…
11-Sep-1933 17 The Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933 View…
21-Sep-1933 23 The Murshidabad Estate Administration Act, 1933 View…
6-Mar-1934 02 The Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 View…
1-May-1934 15 The Sugarcane Act, 1934 View…
9-Aug-1934 22 The Aircraft Act, 1934 View…
6-Sep-1934 30 The Petroleum Act, 1934 View…
23-Apr-1936 04 The Payment of Wages Act, 1936 View…
24-Feb-1937 01 The Agricultural Produce (Grading and Marking) Act, 1937 View…
14-Apr-1937 19 The Arya Marriage Validation Act, 1937 View…
7-Oct-1937 26 The Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 View…
26-Feb-1938 04 The Insurance Act, 1938 View…
12-Mar-1938 05 The Manoeuvres, Field Firing and Artillery Practice Act, 1938 View…
8-Apr-1938 10 The Cutchi Memons Act, 1938 View…
17-Mar-1939 08 The Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 View…
8-Apr-1939 16 The Registration of Foreigners Act, 1939 View…
26-Sep-1939 30 The Commercial Documents Evidence Act, 1939 View…
10-Apr-1940 23 The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 View…
17-Mar-1941 05 The Assam Rifles Act, 1941 View…
8-Apr-1941 12 The Delhi Restriction of Uses of Land Act, 1941 View…
2-Mar-1942 07 The Coffee Act, 1942 View…
31-Mar-1943 09 The Reciprocity Act, 1943 View…
24-Feb-1944 01 The Central Excises Act 1944 View…
22-Nov-1944 18 The Public Debt Act, 1944 View…
24-Dec-1945 47 The International Monetary Fund and Bank Act, 1945 View…
23-Apr-1946 20 The Industrial Employmnet (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 View…
19-Nov-1946 25 The Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 View…
23-Nov-1946 31 The Foreigners Act, 1946 View…
11-Mar-1947 14 The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 View…
20-Mar-1947 15 The Armed Forces (Emergency Duties) Act, 1947 View…
18-Apr-1947 24 The Rubber Act, 1947 View…
20-Dec-1947 43 The United Nations (Security Council) Act, 1947 View…
20-Dec-1947 46 The United Nations (Privileges and Immunities) Act, 1947 View…
31-Dec-1947 48 The Indian Nursing Council Act, 1947 View…
4-Mar-1948 08 The Pharmacy Act, 1948 View…
4-Mar-1948 09 The Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1948 View…
15-Mar-1948 11 The Minimum Wages Act, 1948 View…
23-Mar-1948 12 The Rehabilitation Finance Administration Act, 1948 View…
27-Mar-1948 14 The Damodar Valley Corporation Act, 1948 View…
29-Mar-1948 16 The Dentists Act, 1948 View…
16-Apr-1948 31 The National Cadet Corps Act, 1948 View…
16-Apr-1948 33 The Calcutta Port (Pilotage) Act, 1948 View…
19-Apr-1948 34 The Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 View…
3-Sep-1948 37 The Census Act, 1948 View…
3-Sep-1948 41 The Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths and Fees) Act, 1948 View…
3-Sep-1948 46 The Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 View…
8-Sep-1948 53 The Oilfields (Regulation and Development) Act, 1948 View…
10-Sep-1948 56 The Territorial Army Act, 1948 View…
10-Sep-1948 58 The Exchange of Prisoners Act, 1948 View…
20-Sep-1948 61 The Central Silk Board Act, 1948 View…
20-Sep-1948 60 The Resettlement of Displaced Persons (Land Acquisition)  Act, 1948 View…
23-Sep-1948 63 The Factories Act, 1948 View…
23-Sep-1948 62 The Reserve Bank (Transfer to Public Ownership) Act, 1948 View…
24-Sep-1948 66 The Delhi and Ajmer-Merwara Land Development Act, 1948 View…
14-Feb-1949 02 The Mangrol and Manavadar (Administration of Property) Act, 1949 View…
10-Mar-1949 10 The Banking Regulation Act, 1949 View…
14-Apr-1949 20 The West Godavari District (Assimilation of Laws on Federal Subjects) Act, 1949 View…
22-Apr-1949 24 The Delhi Hotels (Control of Accommodation) Act, 1949 View…
1-May-1949 38 The Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 View…
14-Dec-1949 54 The Industrial Disputes (Banking and Insurance Companies) Act, 1949 View…
27-Dec-1949 64 The Police Act, 1949 View…
28-Dec-1949 66 The Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 View…
27-Feb-1950 07 The High Courts (Seals) Act, 1950 View…
1-Mar-1950 12 The Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 View…
1-Mar-1950 10 The Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950 View…
10-Mar-1950 18 The Special Criminal Courts (Jurisdiction) Act, 1950 View…
12-Apr-1950 29 The Transfer of Prisoners Act, 1950 View…
15-Apr-1950 30 The Union Territories (Laws) Act, 1950 View…
28-Apr-1950 40 The Army and Air Force (Disposal of Private Property) Act, 1950 View…
10-May-1950 42 The Ajmer Tenancy and Land Records Act, 1950 View…
12-May-1950 43 The Representation of the People Act, 1950 View…
18-May-1950 45 The Air Force Act, 1950 View…
20-May-1950 46 The Army Act, 1950 View…
14-Aug-1950 49 The Contingency Fund of India Act, 1950 View…
4-Dec-1950 64 The Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950 View…
28-Dec-1950 74 The Telegraph Wires (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1950 View…
28-Dec-1950 78 The Khaddar (Protection of Name) Act, 1950 View…